This house would ban animal testing
Debate Rounds (4)
Animal testing is one of the most controversial topics in our generation. Just because animal testing has been going on for several centuries doesn't make it any bit okay.
my two arguments will be, the uneccesarry use of animal testing as well as the chance of false results.
It's completely necessary to use animals in a lab, partially because the world doesn't need a new soap or erectile dysuction pill so badly it results in the deaths of innocent animals. Most of the time these animals are tested on extremely utterly useless things, and very rarely do scientists finds major break throughs and advances medecine. The fact remains that if rodents were dying in a lab for cancer research, and real progress is being done, I'd guarantee most people wouldn't be against it. But the circumstances are not so pretty, and you cannot possibly justify testing on these animals with little to no advances.
My next argument is faulty science. If the scientist does find a breakthrough and whatever drug he/she was being tested on animals does end up working, chances are it won't work on a human. Making it once again IRRELEVANT. You must understand that there are better ways out there, to find cures for medecine, to test products, and that animal testing isn't even close to being the answer to our problems.
By now you should know that 1. The majority of our tests are on unnecessary products, at least not important enough to be used on animals 2. Even the small minority of animals being tested for medical reasons usually end up failing and resulting in a waste of time and not to mention an innocent life. 3. IF by chance the medecine ends up working on the animal, there is no telling whether or not this will work on a human being. Statistically 92/100 drugs that passes animals tests, FAILS in humans
Why Not Testing on Animals is Bad:
This one is simple enough: think of all the great medical advances we've had in the past century or so. For pretty much every medical advancement in the past century, there's been an animal behind it. Let's just take a look at how far we've come just from animals alone.
The University of Minnesota actually published a small, but not insignficant, list of medical advances due to animals, along with what animal was credited for the discovery. I won't cover them all, but let's just get some of the highlights for the road:
1990 - We developed more advanced organ transplant technicques thanks to dogs, pigs, sheep, and cows.
1982 - We developed a treatment for leprosy thanks to the armadillo.
1964 - We discovered ways to regulate one's cholestoral, thanks to the rat.
1956 - We developed ways to perform open-heart surgery and invented pacemakers thanks to the dog.
1954 - We made a vaccine for polio thanks to mice and monkeys
1921 - We discovered insulin thanks to dogs and fish.
It even goes back further than the past century, going all the way to 1881 where we developed a vaccine for anthrax because of sheep and 1796 where we developed a vaccine for smallpox thanks to cows.
Furthermore, the impact of animals in medical testing is incredible. The medical breakthroughs that have come as a result that have drastically improved the quality of life of both humans and animals. The road to a better life for both animals and humans is is through animal testing. Still explains:
With that, I'm going to respond to a few claims my opponent makes.
He says: "partially because the world doesn't need a new soap or erectile dysuction pill so badly it results in the deaths of innocent animals."
I agree. My position is that the only times we should be using animal testing is when it's for medical research. Cosmetic research and other uses shouldn't apply.
He claims: "you cannot possibly justify testing on these animals with little to no advances."
Look back at my case and see the multitude of advances and achievements that have been made on the back of animal research. Saying that we can't justify testing animals on "little to no advances" is just living under a rock.
He claims: "chances are it won't work on a human."
This is just a blatantly false claim. Animals exist whose organ systems share very close similiaries with humans, allowing us to target those systems for testing. This gives us accurate results. Murali explains:
He then finally claims: "You must understand that there are better ways out there, to find cures for medecine, to test products, and that animal testing isn't even close to being the answer to our problems."
This is also blatantly false. Alternatives, when compared to animal testing, just fail to compare. Murali continues:
With that, I think the case for animal testing is fairly well put from here: medical advances justify animal testing, and all my opponent's problems with animal testing have been answered.
 - http://cflegacy.research.umn.edu...
 - Tom Still [Tom Still is president of the Wisconsin Technology Council. He is the former associate editor of the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison].Animal testing: Beyond the protests, instances of mistreatment are rare. WTN News. http://wtnnews.com......
 - http://theconversation.com...;
In my second round I would first refute my opponents arguments, back up my existing arguments and present a possible new argument.
Although I must say that some medical advances has been made, there is no doubt about that. But the real question is at what cause? Over 100 million animals are burned,crippled, poisoned, and abused across the US. You heard that correctly, the numbers are staggering. If there are already 100 million animals being treated like this and these numbers are only for the US, what about globally? The next logical question would be to ask, what happens to these animals who are not necessarily dead but close to it. I'm glad you asked, in most cases that these animals suffer, and scientists do not put them out of their miseries, leaving them to die along with their dignity. A slow and not to mention extremely painful death.
But once again I must say, some advances has been made such as the ones my opponent has stated before me. the next question is. Is it ethical? any rational human being would say no. Is it ever ethical to test on living things? The fact that my opponent has mentioned and made a detailed list about medical advances, doesn't make it anymore ethical. Because by his logic I can also say that the Nazi experimentation went well because they were able to find medical breakthroughs while experimenting on camp inmates aka jews. This proves my point that even though some results has been made, that doesn't make it ethically okay.
According to the Humane Society, registration of a single pesticide requires more than 50 experiments and the use of as many as 12,000 animals.
Which brings to my next point, Inefficiency. How many more animals are we going to let them die for us until we finally realize that testing on animals isn't the answer? We are fortunate enough to live in a time when unbelievable technological advances are made on the daily, mankind has never witnessed growth this fast, this large. And you're telling me that there isn't any other way we can find vaccines, do medical research, or even test cosmetics, than using defenceless animals? Mankind has been testing on animals for far too long, we must realize we are not the same as we were hundreds of years ago, we are civilized, we have the technology to find better ways and more efficient ways.
My opponent claims
"This is just a blatantly false claim. Animals exist whose organ systems share very close similiaries with humans, allowing us to target those systems for testing. This gives us accurate results. Murali explains: ..."
I regrettably must inform him that 92% of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don"t work according to "dosomething.org" 92% is a pretty high failure rate for something that's apparently "effective"
By now you should know 1) animals are suffering, and for the small amount of research we are learning, millions of animals would have to die. For every positive result my opponent can list, I can list 50 negative results, deeming it inefficient and irrelevant. 2) Just because there are results doesn't make it okay (Nazis) 3) We simply have better technology if we are willing to spend the money. In an ideal world labs would follow protocol and give painkillers to these animals, and treat these animals with care and respect. Not to say that ALL labs disregards the rules, but the sad reality is that most of these labs do ignore standard protocols, because standard protocols would cost a lot of money, to buy painkillers, proper shelter, food, etc. The same money they could use for alternative ways to test, such as using human tissue and cells. If labs are given the extra funds to follow protocol for animal testing, they might as well use new technology that has faster and a lot more precise answers than animal testing. Deeming it completely pointless, There are obviously pros for testing on animals, but the fact still and will always remain that the cons outweighs the pros in a landslide.
I'll start by responding to my opponent's claims, then defending my own.
He states: "But the real question is at what cause? ... use of as many as 12,000 animals."
This point effectively is just saying that the advances we've made today aren't worth all the suffering we've caused to animals so we should stop testing on them since it hurts them. There are tons of responses you can make to this.
First, there's no reason this unnecessary suffering has to occur, and my opponent doesn't give one either. Just because some mistakes have been made in the past doesn't mean that those mistakes must continue to be made. The simple answer is to just make laws governing the treatment of animals more strict to ensure that no undue suffering is inflicted onto animals during testing and that, if some suffering must be inflicted, that a) it's done humanely and b) is done properly (i.e. we're not just randomly poking at animals with sticks to see what happens).
Second, refer back to the Stills evidence I gave last round where it's talking about all the medical advances that have come from testing on animals, both human advances and animal advances. This means that by testing on animal we're finding ways to make their lives better, which solves for animal suffering on a much larger scale over the long-run.
Third, this suffering works against my opponent. By just denying animal experimentation and just leaving current projects in stand-still, it makes all the suffering of animals that has brought them to this point in vain. If animals must suffer, the only way we can possibly justify it is by gaining something of use from it, i.e. medical advances we can use to improve the quality of life of humans and/or animals. If we stop testing now, we'd have just been testing on them and causing suffering and not gotten anything from it, which means they suffered for nothing.
He states: "Inefficiency. ... we have the technology to find better ways and more efficient ways."
This entire paragraph is him ranting about how immoral animal testing is and how it isn't effective but a) doesn't respond to how many actual advancements we've had, and b) doesn't respond to where I'm talking about all these other ways he's trying to talk about don't even compare to what we can do with animal testing.
He states: ""dosomething.org""
I'm gonna go ahead and posit the idea that a site that encourages activism is probably going to have information that skews sides and debates in the favor of the activist position...
Since that's all that was posited I'm just going to leave it there.
I will start by refuting the oppositions arguments and then strengthen mine.
He respectfully claims:
The simple answer is to just make laws governing the treatment of animals more strict to ensure that no undue suffering is inflicted onto animals during testing and that, if some suffering must be inflicted, that a) it's done humanely and b) is done properly (i.e. we're not just randomly poking at animals with sticks to see what happens).
And to this, I respond. Yes there is nothing that would make me happier than putting laws in place that govern safe treatment. But as I said in my last argument. 1) It's expensive 2) there are already laws in place (which very little takes seriously) and I even found alternative ways to replace animal testing such as "human tissues and cells" which are a) More accurate b) Easier to transport c) Not barbaric at the least! IF labs are willing to put in the extra money to fund secure and make sure "no undue suffering is inflicted" as my opponent has mentioned. Then that means they have the funds for new technology such as the one I mentioned, thus completely eliminating the need for animal research.
" there's no reason this unnecessary suffering has to occur"
I agree! let's switch to human cell/tissue research!
He then secondly refers back to his evidence posted in the 1st argument and says how by researching animals not only are we helping humans, we are also helping animals. Which is a valid point. But considering animals has been doing just fine for thousands of years before they've made contacts with humans, I have a feeling animals DO NOT NEED our help on finding out information about themselves and the chain of evolution has been doing fine before animal experimentation.
Third he mentions how "By just denying animal experimentation and just leaving current projects in stand-still, it makes all the suffering of animals that has brought them to this point in vain."
But I personally believe animals has already done enough for us. And it's time we started giving back, firstly by eliminating animal experimentation.
His last claim is the fact that he has a problem with my sources and questions the reliability of it. But I can assure my opponent that all of my information has been cross checked and approved.
This debate really comes down to a clear decision. We have the technology, We more or less have the money, and no matter how many air tight laws and regulations we put in, it doesn't change the fact that animals will always suffer, that's to assume people will even follow these regulations and put in the money/effort. There is NO doubt, and I encourage my opponent to quote me on this. There is NO doubt that medical advances has been made, thanks to animal experimentation. But simply put we live in a different time than 100 years ago, heck we live in different time than 5 years ago, that's how fast technology is improving. And I strongly feel that with new technology, it's only logical to replace our old ways of research and replace them with new, reliable, and more accurate ones. Animals has contributed enough for mankind and it's time we started to pay them back, slowly but surely.
He claims: "But as I said in my last argument. 1) It's expensive 2) there are already laws in place (which very little takes seriously)"
He claims: "I even found alternative ways"
He claims: " I have a feeling animals DO NOT NEED"
He claims: "But I personally believe animals has already done enough for us."
He claims: "But I can assure my opponent that all of my information has been cross checked and approved."
So this debate is really simple:
First, he's never responded to the Murali evidence which is showing that alternatives to animal testing either a) don't work nearly as well as animal testing does, and/or b) it's not meant to replace animal testing, rather suppliment it. Don't let him finally put a response to it in the last round because that's unfair to me to have to respond to new arguments in the final round. This is going to be crucial because it just turns the debate into "Does animal testing give us things that are worth the cost".
Second, I'm giving clear reasoning as to why animals don't actually have to suffer as a part of animal testing because we have these laws that help protect animals who are being tested on to make sure that they don't unduly suffer and that this suffering, if necessary, is done so humanely. All we need to do is enforce them and we solve a lot of the issue my opponent has. This turns the debate into "Does animal testing give us results".
Third, my opponent hasn't made any kind of sufficient attempt at refuting the points I'm making that animal testing gives us valuable medical advances and medicines that we can use to not only better human life, but animal life as well. This means that there are clear beneficial impacts to keeping animal testing around.
Well that's just purely false. Unless it's raining painkillers, animal nourishment and proper animal shelter. I don't see any way how it's possible to improve the health standards of animals while still maintaining cost?
A common theme throughout most of my opponents refutations is my inability to argue his points, but two can play at that game. My opponent time after time has failed to respond or even hint at my stronger arguments such as researching using human tissue and cells. Which ARE more efficient and accurate, I have thrown facts in his face time after time and he always disregards them. Instead he picks on my sources and comes up with the most irrelevant points such as
He claims: "But I can assure my opponent that all of my information has been cross checked and approved."
This is just your assertion. It doesn't help that I was questioning you in the first place, then you just say "Trust me guys, I got this."
The fact that half of my 3rd argument is based completely on the fact that there is new technology and for him to just ignore it proves that either 1) he just simply did not read half my argument, or 2) he's deliberately not answering them because there is nothing to argue, and If I were in his shoes I would be doing the same thing. Because what this debate comes down to is rather simple. There is better technology that can be purchased and developed RIGHT NOW. Not in 10 years, RIGHT NOW. Animal experimentation was a great method to learn and better our medecine, but we must replace previous technology with better ones, that's not questionable, it's human evolution, just because animal experimentation has helped us in the past, that doesn't mean we should just keep using them, if we didn't have the technology to replace animal experimentation, then this wouldn't be a debate, animal experimentation would be the way to go. The circumstances are not such, and we are able to use better technology. This new technology isn't controversial in the least and has a higher accuracy rate which will lead to higher rate of success in a human body.
My opponent also tries to pull a fast one, saying:
it just turns the debate into "Does animal testing give us things that are worth the cost".
No, my dear friend. This debate should be "Are there other methods of experimentation that can replace animal testing??" and the answer will always be yes because...
By saying that other methods will not work as well as animal testing without even talking about and discussing the pros and cons of other types of methods. My opponent must be living under a rock if he thinks that there is NO other viable way to replace animal experimentation , I've read an article this morning that suggests 3D models of animals or human cells can potentially replace animal testing, his inability to think outside the box will cost him. And his refutation to my argument about using other methods is weak and ignorant, the same kind of ignorance that caused the dark ages, a period of time where no attempts were made for science, mathematics, agriculture. Because "what we have is good enough" and we don't have to strive for better. The fact is if we don't strive for better and simply settled on what we have, we'll never improve, we'll never go forward. And since my opponent cannot prove that there aren't better methods out there to animal testing, I can only assume that I have won this debate
Animal testing has contributed to some life-saving cures and treatments, animal experimentation had a great run, but it's time we can do without, it's time we can do better. The question isn't whether or not we should try and find better ways to replace animal experimentation, the question is simply are you ready to use newer and more effective ways to research medecine and cosmetics. In the past we did not have a choice if we didn't experiment on animals there were no other ways to do it. But if we continue to research on animals, with newer and more effective technology available then this would be unacceptable. And unless you can genuinely tell yourself that mankind has not improved over the past however many years we were alive and strived, that we had to use the same method of experimentation our ancestors used this decision shouldn't be hard for anyone to judge.
My opponent spends nearly 100% of his final speech talking about how I haven't addressed the fact that he's found alternatvies to animal testing. This is blatantly false, as I've been constantly pointing out that he hasn't been responding to my argument about how his alternatives FAIL. Like, I can't stress how big of a damning mistake my opponent is making this. He's putting all of the proverbial eggs in this "there's another choice than animal testing that we can do, let's do that one!" while ignoring the argument I have that says that these different choices don't replace animal testing and aren't as good as animal testing.
Sorry, I'm about to get really, really informal. Dock me the conduct point if you want to. When he says:
"And his refutation to my argument about using other methods is weak and ignorant, the same kind of ignorance that caused the dark ages, a period of time where no attempts were made for science, mathematics, agriculture. Because "what we have is good enough" and we don't have to strive for better. The fact is if we don't strive for better and simply settled on what we have, we'll never improve, we'll never go forward. And since my opponent cannot prove that there aren't better methods out there to animal testing, I can only assume that I have won this debate"
1. Notice here how there's not actually a response to my argument here. All he's talking about is how my mentality is that of the Dark Ages (nice touch, by the way) with no explanation as to how this applies to my argument. So I get the free route of just saying ad hom and peacing out.
2. This is blatantly not true. I'm actually striving for improvement constantly. I'm taking a system that's given us so many medical advancements and saying "this isn't good enough, let's enforce existing laws better to make sure that it doesn't abuse animals unfairly."
3. I'm definitely proving that there aren't actually any better methods out there that can replace animal testing. That's the entire point of the Murali evidence which specifically goes into how current alternatives just aren't as good or don't actually replace animal testing.
So let's wrap this up.
This entire debate has come down to whether or not there are feasable alternatives to animal testing that can replace it (for some reason). I'm extending out the Murali evidence which is explicitly saying how each and every current alternative just won't replace animal testing for numerous reasons. He hasn't put a single response to it all debate long. And since I'm already winning on how animal testing has positive impacts on both humans and animals, and how the suffering that animals experience isn't something inherent to animal testing and it's something we can solve back for and fix, there's no reason to not vote con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: If the resolution were "An alternative for animal testing should be found", then I would have agreed with pro. Of course, con points out the alternatives we have now also fail, but that doesn't mean we should stop looking for alternatives. WHY CON WON A lot of this debate was tied, but con wins thanks to pro blatantly asserting that he has found alternatives, which is true, but con points out that these alternatives fail. Other than that, good job to both sides.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.